& for the heck of it? Here is the results from my CENATEK "RocketDrive" Solid-State 'disk' Ramdrive board (note the 0ns seek/access here):

What you guys are going to note is a few things:

That RAID 0's setups do a BIT better than single disks, & that "perpendicular recording technology" utilizing disks like SEAGATE units, will kick butt on Avg. Read & Sustained/Burst Reads as well - an amazing technology, & one I would LOVE to see combined w/ 10,000rpm rates, for faster seeks/accesses-reaccesses of files on disk.

ALSO, that SATA2 disks on PRT will knock the chocolate out of SATA 1 setups like mine, cache controller driven or not, in the READ areas... but, on CPU usage (ramdisk here) & Seek/Access + CPU usage (I will have competition here though, but not much), my setup WILL take that area.

Writes are an area WE NEVER TESTED BEFORE, either, mind you (in the URL I post above)... keep this in mind.

Disks are a '4 dimensional test' & based on your needs? It matters to ask yourself WHICH, YOU need most... most folks gain off of READ SPEEDS (loading programs, files for data, etc.)... whereas somebody like myself does a LOT of "file generation" writing code, so writes & seek matter to me largely (CPU use is a nice 'side effect' though).

APK

P.S.=> Keep @ it, & post the KIND of disks you guys use, rather than making us 'dig' by going into your profiles & such (provided you even HAVE that data listed there, etc./et al)... apk

for those who dont know burst speeds tend to be low if you compare 16mb cache to 8mb cache,but dont worry 16mb is better its just the way test r run,burst speeds mean nothing average read and seek times r wot counts

I have 2 x 250 GB Samsung Spinpoint SP2504C in a RAID 0 array with a stripe size of 32 K. Which I have been meaning to ask about. Would my sustained data transfer rate increase if I increased the stripe size to 64k or 16k? What is an optimal stripe size to get the most performance out of my hard drives?

This MIGHT be another "exceptions area" though, per the closing of my last post above: If your needs are say, for transferring LARGE files/amounts of data? It may help...

* Like so much in this field? It all depends on what you need to do... & what the "ROI" is for your needs (a lot like how secondary CPU cache can help things like SETI, Folding@Home, Excel work, but do nearly 'diddly' for those concerned primarily w/ gaming (maybe what? 2-7% gains, TOPS??))

pt keeps the ScienceMark one going, & I wish he'd ditch that one & do the AquaMark 3 one instead, because imo? It is a more SOLID overall test of a systems' abilities, not just CPU & MEMORY as ScienceMark is...

AquaMark gauges ALL 3 areas that matter to the most folks here, & that's CPU, Memory, AND Video... what gamers want, & most of these guys are avid gamers!

APK

P.S.=> BUT, the ScienceMark 2.0 test seems to have more of a 'crowd draw' so... there you go! apk

pt keeps the ScienceMark one going, & I wish he'd ditch that one & do the AquaMark 3 one instead, because imo? It is a more SOLID overall test of a systems' abilities, not just CPU & MEMORY as ScienceMark is...

AquaMark gauges ALL 3 areas that matter to the most folks here, & that's CPU, Memory, AND Video... what gamers want, & most of these guys are avid gamers!

APK

P.S.=> BUT, the ScienceMark 2.0 test seems to have more of a 'crowd draw' so... there you go! apk

Click to expand...

one thing i've noticed: we don't really have any 3dm threads here. like massive ones like hdtach and scimark, etc. interesting cuz we're all gamers and stuff... guess we don't really need it because futuremark has orb.

pt keeps the ScienceMark one going, & I wish he'd ditch that one & do the AquaMark 3 one instead, because imo? It is a more SOLID overall test of a systems' abilities, not just CPU & MEMORY as ScienceMark is...

AquaMark gauges ALL 3 areas that matter to the most folks here, & that's CPU, Memory, AND Video... what gamers want, & most of these guys are avid gamers!

APK

P.S.=> BUT, the ScienceMark 2.0 test seems to have more of a 'crowd draw' so... there you go! apk

Click to expand...

amen to that, i think we should maybe consider a pcmark05 thread or 3dmark06 like randomperson suggested.......those are comprehensive benchies

BUT, it has a drawback, & one that affects me, directly - it DEMANDS 1gb of RAM @ least, as a minimum... AquaMark 3, by the same token/by way of comparison?

Does not...

* I lean towards it for OBVIOUS reasons - I have 512mb of RAM & that's it...

APK

Click to expand...

you should invest in another 1.5 gb of ram, 512 is really subpar nowadays, and it makes a WORLD of difference in general responsiveness, i myself have only 1 gb but the jump from 512mb single channel to 1 gb dual channel was phenomenal!